Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Latest NewsDismissalEmployment tribunalsWhistleblowing

Whistleblowers’ charity condemns Court of Appeal judgment

by Adam McCulloch 13 Jul 2022
by Adam McCulloch 13 Jul 2022 Photo: Shutterstock
Photo: Shutterstock

A whistleblowing case has shown that employers can dismiss an employee over disruptive behaviour even when the employee has made a protected disclosure, raising concerns among campaigners that the law ‘will not stand by whistleblowers’.

The charity Protect said the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Kong v Gulf International Bank (UK) Limited would make it easier to victimise and dismiss whistleblowers.

The claimant, Ms Kong, was employed by Gulf International Bank as a senior business auditor. She raised a number of concerns, which were held to be protected disclosures under UK whistleblowing legislation, including one to the firm’s head of legal, Ms Harding, regarding a legal document being unsuitable.

Ms Harding was upset by the disclosure and considered that Kong had questioned her integrity. This led to a disagreement between the two, during which Harding walked out of Kong’s office and slammed the door, and subsequently made comments to others.

Kong was dismissed after this. She asserted that she was a whistleblower, however, and brought claims for detriment because of how Harding had treated her during their disagreement. She also brought a claim for automatic unfair dismissal.

This judgment is very disappointing. We fear this undermines protections for whistleblowers” – Protect CEO Liz Gardiner

The employment tribunal found that Kong had been subjected to detriments, although her claims were out of time. Her automatic unfair dismissal claim was rejected as it was found that the reason for dismissal was not her protected disclosure, but was her conduct in questioning Ms Harding’s professional awareness and competence.

Ms Kong appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, where her appeal was dismissed in July 2021. The EAT agreed that her disclosure and the criticisms of Ms Harding were properly distinguished; Ms Kong’s conduct of questioning Ms Harding’s professional awareness/competence was the principal reason for dismissal, and not the protected disclosure, it found.

Far from undermining the protection of whistleblowers, this decision strikes a sensible balance” – Fieldfisher employment partner Nicholas Thorpe

The Court of Appeal last week (8 July) dismissed the appeal and has agreed that an employer can take action against a worker who makes a protected disclosure in an unreasonable or unacceptable manner, or who acts in an unacceptable way in relation to a protected disclosure.

The judgment stated that although the reason for dismissal may be related to a disclosure, it did not automatically mean that it was in fact because of the disclosure itself, and there may be a distinction between the disclosure and the offensive or abusive manner in which it was made. If the real reason for a dismissal is conduct, and that conduct is distinct and separate from the making of a protected disclosure, the disclosure will be the context for the conduct, and not the reason itself.

Whistleblowing

Stolichnaya exec who objected to 30% staff pay cut wins £1.6m at tribunal

Whistleblowing lawyer awarded £423k by Foreign Office

Whistleblower vet wins landmark £1.25m settlement

Legal guide: Whistleblowing

Lord Justice Underhill wrote in the judgment: “I do not see our decision as turning on any question of principle or as opening any general breach in whistleblower protection. The employment tribunal reached the conclusion that the principal reason why the claimant was dismissed was what the decision-makers perceived as the seriously inappropriate way in which she had challenged Ms Harding’s competence/integrity (which reinforced concerns that that they already had about a lack of emotional intelligence in dealing with colleagues) and was not the fact that she had made protected disclosures.”

Legal comment

Christina Hutchinson, senior associate at Fieldfisher, said: “Far from undermining the protection of whistleblowers, this decision strikes a sensible balance. It does not give employees a free pass to excuse any behaviours just because they have blown the whistle, nor does it allow employers to make an easy distinction to be able to rely on conduct as a reason to dismiss where a protected disclosure has been made. Employers must still provide a detailed explanation as to the real reason for the dismissal, and must demonstrate that this is not because of a protected disclosure. It will not be sufficient if the conduct of the individual is reasonable or acceptable, and the onus is on the employer to show what motivated the decision-maker when dismissing the individual.”

Nicholas Thorpe, partner at Fieldfisher added: “Had the decision gone the other way, then the alternative would be for employers to have to tolerate any behaviour of an individual who has made a protected disclosure, regardless of how unacceptable such behaviour may be. Whilst some may see this decision as worrying, there must be a balance and employees cannot be afforded with immunity for unacceptable behaviour just because they have blown the whistle.”

Criticism of the judgment

According to the Court of Appeal there were likely to be few cases where employers would be able to rely on upset or inherent criticism caused by whistleblowing as a separate and distinct reason. Protect, however, believes that this judgment “will create uncertainty for whistleblowers, and make it easier to victimise and dismiss whistleblowers”. It said the law needed to change, to strengthen whistleblower protection.

Lord Borrie, supporting the passing of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, explained that “the law will stand by [whistleblowers] provided they raise the matter in a responsible and reasonable way”. Protect argued that the Kong judgment meant that this was not the case.

Protect CEO, Liz Gardiner, said: “This judgment is very disappointing. We fear this undermines protections for whistleblowers. Whistleblowing law (the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998) was established to encourage responsible raising of concerns about risk and wrongdoing in the public interest and to protect those who speak up from retaliation. Here the tribunal agreed that Ms Kong had been a responsible whistleblower, and agreed her dismissal was not justified, but still, she was denied whistleblowing protection and lost her automatic unfair dismissal case.

“It is often the case that whistleblowing will cause upset, and very frequently leads to a breakdown in relationships. But to allow an employer to dismiss because the relationship broke down and to say this can be entirely separated from the act of whistleblowing could send the wrong signal to unscrupulous employers.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

“Employers should heed the court’s ruling that there will be few cases where employers can rely on these distinctions”. Nevertheless, we need greater clarity in the law. The current test for whistleblower dismissal is too high a hurdle for whistleblowers to jump.

Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today


Browse more human resources jobs

Adam McCulloch

Adam McCulloch first worked for Personnel Today magazine in the early 1990s as a sub editor. He rejoined Personnel Today as a writer in 2017, covering all aspects of HR but with a special interest in diversity, social mobility and industrial relations. He has ventured beyond the HR realm to work as a freelance writer and production editor in sectors including travel (The Guardian), aviation (Flight International), agriculture (Farmers' Weekly), music (Jazzwise), theatre (The Stage) and social work (Community Care). He is also the author of KentWalksNearLondon. Adam first became interested in industrial relations after witnessing an exchange between Arthur Scargill and National Coal Board chairman Ian McGregor in 1984, while working as a temp in facilities at the NCB, carrying extra chairs into a conference room!

previous post
M&S worker who suffered abuse from shoppers wins unfair dismissal case
next post
Whistleblower awarded £12k in Subway unfair dismissal case

You may also like

NHS worker awarded £29k after Darth Vader comparison

8 May 2025

Whistleblowing protections do not extend to external job...

4 Apr 2025

Whistleblowing up as companies embrace ‘speak up’ culture

2 Apr 2025

Police sergeant’s ‘scattergun’ allegations dismissed by tribunal

17 Mar 2025

Police widen Countess of Chester manslaughter investigation to...

14 Mar 2025

New employment rights top priority for HR teams

10 Mar 2025

Court hears case on whistleblowing protections for external...

19 Feb 2025

Fall of Kabul whistleblower wins unfair dismissal case

19 Feb 2025

Countess of Chester NHS chair resigns after damning...

17 Feb 2025

Whistleblowing: Are there lessons to learn from the...

27 Dec 2024

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+